Wtf is lens "character"?

>>4433316 (OP)
You haven't seen the anime about cameras yet? And you frequent the photography section of this anime website? Really?

>>4433318
Photokano was pretty bad
Sora No Manimani was KINO
Tadakun was cute

>>4433431

>>4433316 (OP)
It's all cold, soulless math and science and it all fits on charts and spectrometer readouts. Camera lenses were first designed by mathematicians, and later by computers.

For photographers, notorious midwits, character means something like
>the lens can only be used for roughly centered portraits from the widest aperture to f5.6 and can not manage a group portrait or a scenic photo until f8 or f11 unless you want everything on the edges to be blurry and purple
>the lens is always hazy so you dont have to edit your fujifilm raws to raise the black level
>the lens is blurry so you can't see your girlfriends acne scars

>>4433431
>playing with lens correction sliders and the dehaze slider.jpg

>>4433432
here we see the only meaningfully different thing between lenses is the blurry background when there are dots of light, everything else can be made up by a computer

>>4433432

>>4433316 (OP)
It’s made up boomer schizophrenia in the same vein as “3D pop” or “micro contrast”. You might be able to vaguely link it to some parts of an mtf chart but as the acronym implies, those are for trannies.

>>4433440
In the boomers day it was real because you only had so much room to fix lens problems on film.

Today you'd have to go for some turbo dogshit lenses like viltrox, ttartisans, or lumix gear to find a lens that has "the wrong rendering", or bokeh peep big zooms meant for soulless sports and wildlife

>>4433316 (OP)
It’s easier to understand what a bad character is than what a good character is

Take an average apsc kit lens. 18mm-55mm f3.5-f5.6. Now make a macro-style shot with it. You will see a pretty sharp and ugly border between the in-focus and out of focus area. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it in other photos like portraits.

That the lenses character

Bad image quality is character

Character

>>4433501
looks like a cheap ultra fast lens shot wide open.

In a way all lenses are character lenses, but things such as field curvature and the how the bokeh look may make some lenses stand out as different than the norm. I guess that could be called character in this sense. Excessive chromatic aberration can also be called character in a way if that is a look somebody is after to convey some form of emotion. In essence it means that the lens has some distinguishable look which can be both good and bad, but at the end of the day it just means please buy my old crap.

>>4433503
Because it is

>>4433433
>I'm an autistic fascist and can't understand the concept of the human soul

>>4433316 (OP)
It's in the name. Characteristics unique to the lens. Could be a certain kind of focus fall off or an uncorrected optical "fault". I particularly like the sun stars on Voigtlanders. The autistic retards on this board rail against them because they can't be placed on a chart and compared by a soulless lens reviewer. Truthfully camera and lens character is one of the thing that the best working photographers care about. They aren't using old cameras and lenses because they don't want to spend money on something new. New gear is a tax write off to them. It's cause the pictures they take look a certain way and they like using them.

All these pictures look the same
are photofags ok?

>>4433552
No.

>>4433552
I feel the same watching reviews and they go on about how shit something is and it looks fine

>>4433552
I love these comparisons cause I know It will look the same if I get the cheaper/smaller/faster lens lol

I think most photographers don't really shoot photos with a specific photo they are trying to achieve in mind, they just kinda shoot shit they think might result in a cool looking photo and so they tend to rely on things out of their control to make the photos interesting. You see this a lot with the film crowd, they take pictures and hope that the combination of vintage glass and film result in a certain "look", be it a fuzzyiness or warmth or weird flares some vintage glass had. If you shot the exact same composition with the exact same settings, and used some vintage nikkor glass on an f3 for one, and a nikon z8 with modern glass on the other, you wouldn't be relying on the glass or the "sensor" to create a certain feeling for you on the latter, you'd have to kinda engineer that in through post processing, and most people don't wanna go through the trouble. That's the way I see it, anyway, but it's kinda lame that you're letting the medium dictate so much of how the end product looks. It's the same shit with anamorphic lenses, they're objectively not the best lenses, they look kinda shitty on the corners and have artifacts but it creates what people would describe as a "cinematic" look. I don't think this means digital is superior but these days how a digital photo looks is much more intentional since most people shooting film are offloading the inversion and scanning to a lab instead of doing it themselves.

>>4433552
get your eyes checked

>>4433560
People only say shit like that if they have not tried it. Take a cheap 50mm prime and an expensive 50mm prime and shoot them side by side. I mean literally: actually try it out IRL. Do it.

You will see the sharpest point of the things in focus is sharper on one than the other

>>4433670
the thing is the subject is orders of magnitude more important than gear.

A landscape photo with your 10k Hasselblad sucks ass in Indianapolis, a landscape in Patagonia with a Canon 550D will be good. A portrait of your girlfriend shot on a Leica M11 sucks if she looks like Zendaya, a portrait of your girlfriend shot on an iPhone 5 will be super hot if she looks like Sydney Sweeney.

Subject is 100x more important than how much character your lens has.

>>4433672
>A landscape photo with your 10k Hasselblad sucks ass in Indianapolis, a landscape in Patagonia with a Canon 550D will be good.
and then there's our friend atmospheric distortion.

>>4433316 (OP)
its unique rendering characteristics, like sharpness, bokeh, color, contrast, field curvature and so on
some lenses have more character, some are more clinical
hope this helps

>>4433672
>A portrait of your girlfriend shot on a Leica M11 sucks if she looks like Zendaya, a portrait of your girlfriend shot on an iPhone 5 will be super hot if she looks like Sydney Sweeney.
Absolutely turbobased. You know the one with the big tits is sending you cellphone selfies in bad light off a dirty mirror, you wouldn’t delete them and tell her to get a good camera lol

>>4433545
If you understood the concept of the human soul, you would be a fascist too.

Cameras are inherently soulless instruments. A lens can not have feeling. Just take a gander at that guy who took early 2000s god tier rollei digital MF, just to take such awful dog snapshits that his "work" with a fujifilm s5 pro looks better. A talented person could shoot more emotive and communicative shit with a super sharp nikon Z mount 50mm f0.9 and an 85mp Z7III.

>>4433672
Excuse me, but I would zendaya, and gladly shoot her on a sony a7rv because I'm not enough of a fag to touch a digital leica

>>4433732
The point is not whether you find Zendaya hot.

Be honest anon. look at picrel. Would you REALLY choose to go on a vacation to Italy with camera left & girl left over a vacation with camera right & girl right?

>>4433752
Yes because I don't have a bimbo fetish and skeletal triple D blondes with african lips look weird to me

>>4433752
give me the hasselblad, left definitely fucks like a freak and is tight af

>>4433552
how about now

>>4433768
all of your lenses suck

bokeh CA is the single most serious optical flaw on earth. if a lens costs more than $250 and has bokeh CA it's garbage.

>>4433770
So do they look the same or different?
All of these lenses suck? >>4433432
What are some examples of good lenses?
When will you share a better example for everyone to see?

>>4433770
>bokeh CA is the single most serious optical flaw on earth. if a lens costs more than $250 and has bokeh CA it's garbage.

agreed so much I fucking hate CA. Idgaf about soap bubble bokeh, onion rings, soft vignetting, swhirlyness, catseye, pillow case, couch cushion... all of this idgaf. But CA sucks ass.

>>4433768
you won't get good discussions about a topic like that here where people pretend (I hope it's just pretending) to be retarded
even when confronted with examples they will just move the goal post

>>4433316 (OP)
If you want lenses with character you need to adapt vintage brass lenses to your cameras. Petzval, rapid rectilinear, etc. They're fun and the smaller ones are pretty inexpensive.

>>4433813
that's not really true, there are companies that release new lenses with vintage characteristics, sometimes even direct copies of vintage glass
which is nice because then you don't have to deal with things like dried grease, haze, fungus and so on
will usually be more expensive of course

>>4433814
All those things are character you're missing out on. It is a decent alternative for lazy people, but not the same thing.

>>4433820
stiff focus and aperture rings are my favorite lens characteristics

>>4433821
Skill issue.

>>4433731
Lol your a miserable person dude. I hope you get over this depressive episode and find happiness in the future

>>4433752
>>4433732
>Comparing objects
>mind immediately goes to comparing woman
Bella ramsey's cute and the girl on the right is the shadows on the wall in platos cave. This is why you are lonely and sad. I hope you find inner piece

>>4433731
Not my problem if you feel nothing from 10/10 dog based art photography.

>>4433619
This is especially obvious if you watch Nick Carver on Youtube vs the glut of film photography youtubers. Most film youtubers just go somewhere and spray and pray rolls of film only to flash them on the screen for 1 second with an enormous white border. They'll occasionally get a nice shot but its mostly snapshits with the film carrying the heavy load of getting a pleasing look. They are entertaining channels but they arent really great photographers, more just travel vloggers and picture takers, the photos themselves are an afterthought. Considering they mostly seem to shoot Portra 400, dont develop or scan their own film, then just blast away the dynamic range in Lightroom in post, its just more of a lifestyle hobby thing than it is a practical choice.

Nick plans shots months ahead of time based on humidity, sun positioning, etc, and can talk about framing and choosing what he chose to exclude from the frame, what to include, etc. Talks about gear from a completely practical stand point, and only what he needs to get the shots he envisioned. Will show up to his locations multiple times if the conditions arent what he envisioned, etc really changed the way I want to do things.

I'm still a show up and blast pictures and hope its good kind of guy, and seeing pictures on the screen when i get home usually makes me question why i bought a camera in the first place because its obvious I put zero thought into what I was doing other than just pointing my camera at something and pressing the shutter. Shots randomly in portrait, things cut off in the frame etc.

>>4433900
Shoot 8x10 film and that will change quickly. 20 dollars a shot for color negative film and 40lbs of kit will force you to think about your shots instead of just pointing and shooting.

>>4433900
I wouldn't even mind them taking shit photos if they just admitted something like "This channel is just for comfort and relaxation, not actual photography advice or education"
But they act like simply using film is some inherently spiritual experience that elevates their random pics

>>4433911
Shout out to snappiness and gerald undone for the worst fucking photography i've ever seen. And I browse /p/.

>>4433905
Post eggs

>>4433881
You have a wonderful way with words

>>4433911
I will give credit that grainydays is atleast honest about when his pictures suck, and about being a gear whore. Hes funny and atleast knows when his pics are good or bad.

The one that gets me is Verbeeck. His video about buying a Leica M6 is insane, he blasts through like 12 rolls of Portra over lofi beats and all but like 2 of the pics are shit that I wouldnt even bother taking with a digital camera. Like zero consideration for framing or subject, just see something stand still and blast away at eye level. He's a youtuber so its mostly just a need for content but if I knew someone that was doing that personally I'd be seriously concerned for their well being spending 7k on a camera an 300+ bucks on film and development for worthless snap shits.

>>4433881
>Bella ramsey's cute
never thought I'd see someone say that

>>4433913
I haven't taken any new egg pics lately. :( Im sorry. I have an idea for an egg based 8x10 that will use this long rooster feather I found and an egg laid next to each other. Simple and elegant maybe.

There are two eggless 8x10s I posted if you look at the last pics in fgt. They're nice, but only a couple first attempts at a picture I want to put some effort into refining compositionally.
If I want to really refine a picture I'll print it out and put it somewhere I can see when I'm sitting around inside to think about it.

>>4433770
>>4433774
>if a lens costs more than $250 and has bokeh CA it's garbage.
:(

>>4433900
Yea I don't own any large format gear and I have a mental hang up about showing up to a location and just pressing the shutter without setting up a tripod or shit like that. It just feels off, like there you go there's the pic. It never feels like I'm doing the location justice.

I really should get a 4x5.

>>4433917
I loathe Jason's fat friend the guy with the beanie and the blonde beard you know the one, he looks like he smells and his pictures are shit.

>>4433954
Do it! In some ways 4x5 and larger is the only truly worthwhile film to still be shooting. You can get 4x5 cameras and lenses for not too much money as well.

>>4433958
Yea but the camera bodies thooo, is any ebay cheapo 4x5 good? I don't wanna shell out money for an intrepid. As I understand it the bodies just need to have movement but are otherwise just boxes.

>>4433954
you do realize shooting digital doesn't mean you have to just snap away
you can totally spend time composing shots and thinking about what you're doing, you can even use a tripod for it

>>4433960
Yep. Just need to make sure the bellows are good, really. Sinar, cambo, and calumet have very inexpensive options if you can deal with a monorail. Cambo is a bit cheaper, but sinar has more accessories. Keep an eye out on ebay and sometimes you can find a boomer's old kit being sold for pennies. Recently I won a sinar 8x10 kit that is easily worth over 10k for like 2500 bucks. Just one of the lenses out of 4 I won sells on ebay for 1800-2000+.

I see a cambo 4x5 on keh for 180 bucks. You can start of with some of the solid inexpensive lenses like the nikkors or schneider super angulon they're like 150 to 300 each.

Old field cameras will most likely need their bellows replaced and wooden cameras kinda suck because of how floppy they are, but they're significantly easier to pack in a backpack.

>>4433954
>I loathe Jason's fat friend the guy with the beanie and the blonde beard you know the one, he looks like he smells and his pictures are shit.
I know exactly what you mean, guy is the archetypical Reddit trust fund basedboy queer

>>4433962
I can, and yet it feels weird because it's not really needed you know? I have enough IBIS to shoot at whatever settings I want so I just feel like I'm doing too much.

>>4433964
Can I take pictures like my hero Nick Carver with this?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/388522682531?

>>4433969
Is he even queer? Seems like one of those people that like the ally aesthetic but don't like to actually hang out with da gays

>>4433989
Probably. The bellows look pretty good, but they are the weird stiffer old material, so there is a small chance they may have pinholes in them.

Not too expensive for an actually minty looking camera.

>>4433989
One caveat to purchasing that camera is the weird lens boards you may need to purchase for it. A field camera that accepts linhoff style lens boards is going to make your life significantly easier. Do some research and see what board type those cameras accept and if there is an adapter that lets you mount either linhof or sinar boards to it.

The tripod mount also looks kinda strange. Notice how there's just a huge hole in the bottom of the camera? Idk about that one...

>>4433964
>cambo in keh for 180 bucks
Man, I got lucky as hell I talked a thrift shop down for a full kit with the standard 210 lens and some holders, lens boards, and a bag bellows for 40 bucks. I just played stupid lol like “I don’t know I think it’s one of those old fashioned cameras but I just want to decorate with it”. Haven’t done any sheets with it yet, just instax so far but everything seems functional.

>>4433994
Wow with a box as well! Excellent find. I mainly purchased that sinar 8x10 for the box because the 8x10 boxes are so rare. 4 new 8x10 specific lenses and 8x10 bag bellows was pretty nice also. :D

There's always the best deals from local stores! If you are very patient and know what you're looking for ebay does have some great deals, but probably never 40 bucks for all that! Choose your camera brand, hit newly listed and just keep an eye out for those sweet sweet camera deals.

>>4434000
>tfw no small local thrift stores
>goodwill wised up and sells all camera stuff on ebay now
>local camera stores know what they got

>>4434008
With that mentality you will never find anything.

>>4434008
EBay still works but you basically have to treat it like a full time hobby, set alerts, save tailored searches, check for new listings so you can snipe good deals, even gamble on asis untested listings that sort of thing. I just got an m2, with summixron 50/2, and an mr4 meter for 1600 cad. Sell the lens and the meter and I basically got an m2 for 1000$ which is a screamer price in my market. For example.

>>4434008
facebook market is the place to find LF gear now

>>4434070
I usually gamble on much cheaper stuff, but that is a good way to do it. Bundle deals, but fact of the matter is that you got balls and most people don't so instead they make all sorts of excuses. People be like: buhu where I live there is only yaddi yada and I never find anything buhu and people know what they have buhu woe to me.
Read a comment from a guy finding a Canon FD 35mm f2 concave for $5 in Nigeria a while back. It is one of the easiest used goods markets to make money/find good deals in for private individuals.

>>4434073
>Nigeria
I would never buy anything that was touched by a nigger.

>>4434070
>paying 1000 for an M2
Mental handicap

>>4434079
>poorfag malding
Kek

>>4434071
Craigslist seems pretty good also. Lmao.

>>4434085
No, I just don't want hispter toys

>>4434088
>don’t want hipster toys
>still coming to /p/ - photography when everyone just uses their phone now and essentially this board is 100% about hipster toys except the cell phone thread
Anon, the irony here is hilarious.

>>4434090
>let me be as disingenous as humanly possible
>haha, don't you look foolish now
Ok, mongoloid hipster faggot

>>4434075
"when i was a kid, my mom called niggeria "Nigger area""

>>4434090
Nah, phones actually suck. They take AI slop HDR snapshits. I don't care how many "if and if and if"s phone fags and crop copers can come up with. If your answer to "this camera sucks" is "stop noticing things" you are a soi bugman and the camera still sucks. Phones suck so bad gen Z is buying zoom lens small sensor PNS cameras just to get away from "computational photography beats full frame, check out this chart" faggotry.

>>4434095
My 2MP digishits I recently got produce far more pleasing images.

>>4433942
I wouldn't use a lens with lots of bokeh CA for everything but it adds a lot to certain kinds of shooting. This pics a good example of that. Good pic anon

If people actually cared that much about CA they would be shooting with only apochromatic lenses. This board shits on voigtlander though so I think they are just trolls

>>4434129
Voigtlander gets shit on because they think an asian made mass manufactured telescope with no autofocus, no electronic aperture, and no weather sealing is worth more than $500

All because they slapped a german brand name on it

>>4434131
Which shots are from a voigtlander in >>4433438 >>4433432 and >>4433431
?

>>4434134
>>4434134
Does it matter? Voigtlander's problem is overcharging for 1950s build. I don't care if a voigtlander lens can take a picture of a tree or a stick. Any lens can take a picture of a tree or a stick.

The fact that you are the only one who can answer your own question really says why people shit on voigtlander. Nothing their lenses do is special. They're not even guaranteed to be apochromatic or have certain bokeh. They are generic chinky lenses with a gimmick and a price hike, a predatory business strategy that goes after the leica/gibson/MG MGB "enthusiast" (gearfag) crowd while offering nothing of value to anyone else.

>>4434144
Oh sorry, I thought you had some expertise in the optical qualities of voigtlander glass, but I guess I was wrong, apologies

>>4434147
Oh but dear, I do have some expertise on the optical qualities of voigtlander "glass".

The optical qualities of voigtlander lenses are pedestrian. There is nothing special about them at all. They're pretty generic low end modern designs like you might find in the prosumer range from any other japanese brand.

Except they do not have autofocus, auto aperture, or weather sealing.
And the few electronics they do have (the aperture ring sensor) fucks up and makes them useless on select cameras after 2 years of use.
And they cost about twice as much as they should.

Essentially, they are tamron lenses for leica "people" who just realized they can't afford any more lenses after buying an M11.

>>4434151
But not enough to identify them?
What lenses do you like to use?

>>4434153
Yes, because there is nothing to identify. It is like asking "which of these sheep is craig?"
There are only significant differences to the person who knows which sheep is craig.

Enough of you and your dumb tree tests, lens autist. Go sell your pile of ewaste and take pictures. Maybe you need some time with micro four thirds. Shoo!

>>4434154
Sad to hear you don't take any photos

>>4434162
I was like you when I was new and mostly researched gear instead of taking photos
>omg does this one have more 3d pop?
>which one has the best RENDERING and CHARACTER?
>i sneed the magic 35 my photos lack feeling
And then I started taking photos and switched over to the "yeah can I get the uh XXmm fX.X for BRAND" system of gear shopping where you just use the fucking lens and never look at a review or chart

>>4434163
Ah cool so you do take photos? Which lenses do you like to use?

>>4434165
The 35mm f1.something and 85mm f1.something the rental house offers for whatever the nicest camera they have in stock is

>>4434173
Ah, so you really don't take photos, and just larp about it for fun instead, understood

>>4434174
I do, but I shan't be casting pearls before... people who take a photo of a tree 10 times to zoom in on bokey balls.

>>4434177
I'm sure your pictures are very nice friend

Why do people on 4chan lose their shit whenever gear or the qualities of something get discussed?

>>4434185
Poverty.

>>4434185
When people don't take photos or even have a camera, all they can do is talk about gear that they have no experience with
It's like fantasy football

>>4433768
The image on the right is slightly blurrier. Except for the two on the middle right, which are indistinguishable.

>>4434046
>>4434070
>>4434071
I mean, I already do those things, I was just complaining that things ain't what they used to be
>>4434129
for better or worse it's all I have for 85/1.4, the CA isn't always noticeable and even when it is it's usually correctable (picrel) but without correction it can look prettybad
it's an ebay-saved-search find, NIB for 25% off MSRP, still way more than $250 and I probably could have got it way cheaper if I had looked harder and bought used

>>4434196
They are only indistinguishable if you have poor vision

>>4434366
*zooms out*
looks like your special lense isnt so special anymore. heh.

I like my lenses how I like my women: compact & light weight, easy to use, lots of character and free of fungus

>>4434409
Very true, to the extent we can just ignore the details, every lens and camera starts to look the same

Lens character is just shit ebay flippers say to justify their hipster tax prices

almost any meme lens or stupid shit like soap bubble bokeh (Trioplan faggots I'm looking at you) can be replicated by a Helios 44 or anything else based on a Tessar or a Sonnar

For the prices people are asking for a fucking 100/2.8 you can get a Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 and make the same effect, shits dumb, and all people are going to do with it is take the same picture of flowers wide open and post on Zogbook to their fine art pages

>>4433752

Almost guaranteed the girl on the left gives outstanding top. The one on the right is going to be a zombie lay and whatever you save by bringing the Rabal will be spent on the high maintenance bimbo on the right.

Autism in action

>>4434449
At least it's with how things actually look and not lines or numbers on a chart or inventing hypothetical scenarios

>>4433752
I have a canon when is my big boobs travel companion showing up ?

those anons with their strong opinions on certain brands and their hate of any gear that isn't dirt cheap always give of a commie vibe
they'd be thrilled to live in a society where freedom of choice is largely eliminated, no currency exists and everything is standardized and state-mandated

>>4434454
Based as long as it’s homogenous northern european society
>oy vey dont you want choice between a bunch of aimless scams and closed proprietary shits? dont you want to be scammed by mashinoto sending C&Ds to anyone who bests his overpriced lenses?
Give me a state approved pocketable FF designed by teutonic aryan chads.
>film (counters AI)
>small SLR
>modern CMOS sensor where the focusing screen goes for metering, AE, video, tracking AF, and EVF
>every lens has 5 stop OIS

>>4434445
Rare based sugar post , especially considering we all know you’re a consummate gearfag

>>4434451
It's the other way round: If you don't have a hot girlfriend your life isn't worth documenting anyway. No need to waste the money.

>>4433552
It's not, clear as day the contrast for some of those lens are different and that is just one example.

>>4434173
Lol this guy spending hours replying on a gear fag forum is pretending he doesn't know what lenses/system he has. Probably a Sony who is afraid of getting roasted. Or he just legit doesn't take pictures which is even funnier.

>>4434515
Real pros don't know or care. Character, rendering, brand color science etc are amateur terms.

>>4434523
Yeah, real pros care about "reflectance"

>>4434523
lol you think the people shooting weddings and soulless student portraits are the "real pros". They are the equivalent of prostitutes or roofers providing a service. Trust me I payed my way through college doing it. The "real pros" are going to be fully replaced with AI connected iphones. The ones pushing the medium forward are shooting on things like old digicams and rehoused soviet lenses. The "amateur terms" are mega pixels and autofocus speed and "sharpness". The teenage girls buying a point and shoot because of a tiktok video are more important than you and probably making better pictures.

>>4434530
What kinds of photos do you take now?

>>4434530
The "real pros" are not wedding photographers lol, really says a lot about you if you think that

>>4434525
What are you talking about schizo? Pros don't need to care about whatever that is. Fix it in post.

>>4434530
>The ones pushing the medium forward are shooting on things like old digicams and rehoused soviet lenses
>The teenage girls buying a point and shoot because of a tiktok video are more important than you and probably making better pictures.
None of these people are pushing shit forward.

It's the complete and utter death of all forms of culture as it all becomes commoditized and corporate. The fujifilm "x-half" was your final warning. Creativity is now a consumable. Vibes are delivered via amazon prime. You do not "make art". You "create content". Your job is to keep the users of meta, inc engaged long enough for them to see sponsored messages. Your payment is a superficial feeling of importance.

This is the generation where men cut off their dicks because women get more attention and are allowed to express their sexuality.

>>4434537
the saddest part about the "push forward" is it's 100% about copying the past 3 decades because they know everything sucks now

you know how 1970s photography was cool because it was about the now
well these "people" have "photography" (content) that's about desperately pretending the now never happened and their establishment-instilled value system just teleported back to 1989

>>4434531
Pretty much everything besides weddings and portraits lol. Street, landscape, general life stuff. I have a project going where i'm finding places to take pictures which inspire dread without any people in them.

>>4434537
The Fuji X-half is a flawed but more interesting camera than anything Canon or Sony have produced in the past decade. People using it are actually going to be taking different photos than whatever DSLR/Mirrorless blob you are using. I bet you couldn't take a good picture with it if you tried. You would blame the camera but it's really cause you have the artistic sensibilities of a Nazi making an museum.

>>4434604
>cause you have the artistic sensibilities of a Nazi making an museum
Good taste?

>>4434604
Nazis had amazing artistic sensibilities anon what the fuck are you even saying lol

>>4434581
Oh cool, can you share some?

>>4434612
>>4434615
Oh to be 14 again. …and also a retard…

>>4434768
Nazis had amazing artistic sensibilities and jews make genuinely bad art. Aesthetic incompetence is part of their racial character. It’s like god made a typo while adding athletic incompetence and just left it in.

>>4434537
>content
As much as I'm repulsed by the notion of "content", it has utility. If some product is presented as "for content creators", I can skip the ad and move on, as I sure am not one.

>>4434768
Nazis (socialists), and communists, are great at art. Because they aren't capitalist.

Capitalism on the other hand kills art faster than anything else because the free market gives the majority vote to people who are of below average intelligence

>>4434771
>do I sound like a total fuckin moron?
>let me clarify how stupid I am so as to leave 0 doubt
Tell me more about our inherently awesome artistic sensibilities and fail to grasp how any of it works & how much shit art we produce & how much great work your dear fuckin nazis trashed bc it required more than a first impression of “ooh a pretty barn, I like it”. Fuckin American tool.

>>4434778
>Great work
>Nazis trashed
Everything the nazis trashed was unforgivably garbage.

>>4434771
It's true, a jew has never made good visual art, and a german has never made a good joke. Visual self expression is not actually a fundamental human trait and most people aren't even capable of it.

Jews make great music though gotta give them that

>>4434757
Nice b8. I post all the time in general threads.

>>4434784
That's not true. They didn't destroy any of your photos

>>4434845
Oh great, so you can just link me so I can check out

>>4434855
>the photo begging routine begins

>>4434887
I only ask when people specifically bring up their own background and expertise with taking photos
Honest people just reply with photos
Nophoto larpers just make excuse after excuse
Not my fault people like to lie on the Internet

>>4434933
>>4434887
Sounds like it is time for a photo battle.

>>4434961
Oh sorry I don't take any photos myself

>>4434965
Sad! :(

An easy victory for other anon

>>4434967
But they also don't take photos

>>4434980
You sure 'bout thaaaat?
He could post any sort of photograph he has produced and be declared victorious, which means his opinion is correct and yours is wrong and dumb.

>>4435003
Yeah, anyone that resists simply posting an example photo after they brag about their experience as a photographer is simply lying

>>4435136
Oh yeah. I think we all lose at the end of the day because we have more arguing and less photo battles. Sad!

A lens can not have character because it doesn't have any enduring moral or ethical qualities. It also does not have any behavior and decision making which are influenced by said qualities. Why? Because it is not a living organism

/thread/. Go fuck yourselves.

>>4433432
>rebbit
yikes

>>4433432
Character review.
(1,1) very smooth and creamy bokeh in the background, a but busy in the foreground. Likely achieves its bokeh with undercorrected spherical aberration.
This bokeh is very neutral and pleasant.
Color comes through nicely and and slightly warm. Fair contrast.
This is a lens with solid and manageable character. 7/10.
(1,2) much busier bokeh, soap bubble effect. Meanwhile, the foreground bokeh is much smoother. Likely overcorrects spherical aberration. Bokeh pushes color through, giving it almost a painterly effect.
This bokeh could be used to nice effect.
Colors render cool, but retain high contrast.
A lens with strong character that shines through. 8/10.
(2,1) Busy bokeh without anything special. Polygonal bokeh. Forground bokeh even more unpleasant than (1,1).
Bokeh is subpar, not pleasant.
Contrast is fair, neutral colors.
Poor character. 3/10.
(2,2) Another very painterly bokeh with swirling to boot. Foreground bokeh is quite pleasant, too.
Contrasty in in-focus areas, very sharp local contrast. Neutral or slightly warm colors.
(Is this the Voigtlander?)
I love painterly bokeh and local/micro contrast. 9/10.
(3,1) Fairly neutral bokeh but not particularly "creamy".
Nothing much to note here. It's the sort of bokeh I'd expect from a competent lens.
Neutral in most other regards, too. Unnotable.
This is the character of a competent lens. 6/10.
(3,2) Mildly painterly bokeh. Foreground bokeh borders unpleasant.
Contrasty rendering. Colors push through in odd ways.
I don't know what to think of this lens. I could enjoy it. 7/10
(4,1) That bokeh is horrendous. They didn't consider it at all in the design. Both background and foreground bokeh are bad.
Colors push through however they want. Contrasty but not in a cohesive way.
I don't like it. 4/10.
(4,2) Another lens with neutral bokeh.
Contrasty, with good local contrast. Colors warm.
Competent character. 6/10.

>>4441147
Thanks, chatgaypeetee

>>4441147
Thank you for actually engaging, you have a great eye
>first 3 is all chinesium
>2,2 is voigtlander 50 f1.5 nokton, probably my favorite 50mm (and the smallest too), great eye
>3,1 is also voigtlander, 50 f2 apo, which i dont really like and only ever use f2.8/5.6,
>4,1 is the "magic" xf 35 f1.4, which i find genuinely ugly sometimes

>>4441409
a lot of those chinese lenses are actually copies of old designs. For example, the 7Artisans 35mm f/2 was based on Zeiss Sonnar.
So a lot of those Chinese lenses actually have ridiculously good rendering, pretty much the exact same rendering as a lot of favorite classics.
But they can't seem to figure out good coatings (their coatings tend to be on par with seriously 40 year old coatings from Japanese brands), or figure out how to not get ridiculous purple fringing.
But I'm still wondering where the fuck they got these f/1.8 AF designs. They're all coming out with ridiculously high performing optical formulas that are competitive with first-party lenses for 1/3 of the price.
But their coatings on those lenses are still like 20 years behind. And they still have terrible purple fringing.
> 3,1 is also voigtlander, 50 f2 apo
Ah yes, APO. The bokeh purgatory. Creamy bokeh relies on spherical aberrations. Literally, that's what's creating the creamy effect as the blur is getting "smeared". APO controls for spherical aberrations.
> xf 35 f1.4
Looked into this lens more. It has really nice focus fall off and the bokeh does lend a lot to developing a sense of depth. But then when things get into bokeh it just turns to shit. I have astigmatism and that lens's bokeh is how shit looks when I don't wear glasses.

>>4441594
>a lot of those chinese lenses are actually copies of old designs
despite the flaw you mention, they're actually pretty great. I have a ttartisan 35mm an it was relatively cheap and shoots just fine. No purple fringing in black and white lol. And they're also making some unique fun shit too, different from the uncreative bugmen of the past, like this brightinstar 28mm. thank god they have so many nouveau riche stimulating this cottage industry cause we get to benefit as well.

>>4441594
>high performing optical formulas with outdated coatings
designing & manufacturing lenses is easy
what's hard (expensive) manufacturing them within good tolerances (qc) and high-performance coatings

>>4441594
Yeah, I only like the 35 f1.4 wide open when focused relatively farther way with a gradually distant background. The almost "starburst" like appearance of the corners is a dead giveaway for the lens, I see it all the time. For an example from someone much better than I, this whole shoot was with that lens
https://benjaminkanarek.com/album/next-stop-paris/
Which he at one point described as his desert Island lens.

Another, same as these >>4433438, just at f2.8/f5.6 (or equiv)

>>4433431
I honestly see no difference

>>4441633
this guys comparisons are notoriously sparse and boring, essentially like comparing wines by smelling the corks

he's also a dog snapper, as most dunning kruger gearfags are

>>4441633
The subtle differences are clear when you look at certain areas of the image, like >>4433768
Look at the bokeh of the lights, the structure of the tree going out of focus in the 2nd image, one has smooth bokeh and the other has a bit of ring, etc
>>4441641
>this guys comparisons are notoriously sparse and boring
What a good opportunity for you to show me up by contributing to the board with some better comparisons.
>he's also a dog snapper
More a weddingfag, just mostly share the dog.

>>4441633
It's because of his skill, and the fact that he's purposefully shooting comparisons instead of trying to take the best possible photo each setup can produce.

I was going through vacation 4x6s with my mom (lol) last night and we both noticed how the prints from the nicer cameras people brought like FF nikon and sony stood out from micro four thirds and phone prints, and she asked me why I have an OM5 when I make good money and the photos from my brother's a7cii+40 and my dad's z7+24-120 look obviously better and "pop", because we were all trying to take the best possible photos not comparison photos, and they're of sophisticated subjects with lots of fine random detail shot on quality lenses not meme bokeh-first "character" purchases

I haven't told her I have a massive gambling debt

>>4441651
>it's because of his skill
This is meant as a lack of skill as evidenced by >>4441646

Fuckin doghair does better

>>4441651
>I have a massive gambling debt
are you me lmao. craps is my findom queen

>>4441653
I lost 13k on bitcoin futures and then another 7k at poker
Full frame looks better even with snapfish 4x6s if you move away from boring atonal building corners? No way. Micro four thirds for life!

>>4441652
>>4441651
Did you guys forget to attach your own examples to show me up?

>>4441659
Literally all I do is family photos. I haven't taken a picture of a god damn dog or rocks and leaves in my entire life and I intend to keep it that way. I might shoot micro four thirds, but I won't stoop to the level of a micro fool turd.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go clock in for another extra shift at work so I don't lose my house.

>>4441651
your skank mom is just a sensor size queen. your camera is good enough as it is

>>4441661
>an actual honest mft user

>>4441663
>a cultist in denial
the duality of man. its like comparing a tranny that wants to be left alone with their dildo to a militant troon that wants to groom as many people as possible into ruining their lives because misery loves company

>>4441661
>Literally all I do is family photos
Neat, you can see one of mine here >>4439069
Did you forget to attach your example again?

>>4441694
>I'm an incel who posts his family pictures on 4chan so you have to do!
I will rather leave you with the knowledge that every brand that focused on micro four thirds failed and fuji is getting outcompeted by the used FF market and is responding by cheapening their cameras with increasingly bad chinese manufacturing and giving up on R&D entirely.

>>4441711
>No, I don't have a camera or take photos
Knew it

>>4433316 (OP)
like wouldnt it make more sense to get a uv filter with character? like damaged or cratched or muddied and have a collection these uv filters to put on you fav lens? Ive seen nice pics with damaged, cracked uv lenses giving you pic the extra push it needs. Swirly bokeh... fine maybe a vintage but they are all gay manual and I need sharp pics.

>>4433752
>camera left peak virgin and christian pussy
>camera right STD whore dog fucker peanut butter rubbing inside anus chiuahua eating out intestinal worm slut fuck cum dump

>>4433752
CONSIDER